On Jan 10, 10:12 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 10 Jan., 19:11, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:>> > > On 10 Jan., 18:47, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > Your binary tree have UNCOUNTABLY many paths each defined as a> > sequence of labels of its NODES, even though it has countably many> > nodes. That's what you are not getting. Anyhow.>> I would easily get it if you could identify a path that supports your> assertion by being identified by nodes. Prove your claim by> identifying a path that is missing and tell me by what combination of> nodes you identified it. Unless you cannot do that I think that your> babbling about more than countably many paths is of the same quality> as your babbling about Cantor's statements, which you obviously have> never read, let alone understood.>> Regards, WM

I already SHOWED you that path by diagonalizing each countable set ofinfinite paths of the complete infinite binary tree, but you REFUSE tosee it as usual. This is a trivial corollary of Cantor's argument. Itis YOUR misinterpretation of Cantors, and your obvious inability todeal with such level of thought that make you derive silly andridiculous statements all of which are frankly erroneous.

You see to like the concept of definable reals although franklyspeaking you yourself do not know exactly that is and how to deal withit. Anyhow